An anonymous reader writes “Ordered to tell Samsung all of the company’s HTC secrets, Apple throws a tantrum and adds a bunch of new products to the never-ending list of products Samsung has infringed on. Apple’s tantrum stems from a ruling on Thursday that could have a large effect on the Apple lawsuit. The Apple lawsuit, which was filed in February, alleges that Samsung violated Apple patents related to user interface, technology and style. The first decision was found in favor of Apple to the tune of $1 billion, but Samsung is trying to get that ruling thrown out. But as the Apple lawsuit has gone on, the Apple lawsuit has gotten fiercer, and because of a ruling on Thursday, Apple throws a tantrum and is trying to add even more products into the lawsuit.”

We recently discussed news of a UK court ruling in which the judge decided Apple must publicly acknowledge that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab did not infringe upon the iPad’s design, both on the Apple website and in several publications. The acknowledgement has now been posted, and it’s anything but apologetic. It states the court’s ruling, helpfully referring to “Apple’s registered design No. 000018607-0001,” and quotes the judges words as an advertisement. The judge wrote, “The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.” They go on to mention German and U.S. cases which found in Apple’s favor. Apple’s statement concludes, “So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.”

An anonymous reader writes with a link to this Reuters story, from which he excerpts: “Italy’s supreme court has upheld a ruling that said there was a link between a business executive’s brain tumor and his heavy mobile phone usage, potentially opening the door to further legal claims. The court’s decision flies in the face of much scientific opinion, which generally says there is not enough evidence to declare a link between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and some experts said the Italian ruling should not be used to draw wider conclusions about the subject. ‘Great caution is needed before we jump to conclusions about mobile phones and brain tumors,’ said Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics and clinical engineering at Britain’s Royal Berkshire Hospital. The Italian case concerned company director Innocenzo Marcolini who developed a tumor in the left side of his head after using his mobile phone for 5-6 hours a day for 12 years. He normally held the phone in his left hand, while taking notes with his right hand. Marcolini developed a so-called neurinoma affecting a cranial nerve, which was apparently not cancerous but nevertheless required surgery that badly affected his quality of life.”

First time accepted submitter quippe writes in with some bad news for Microsoft. “Microsoft Corp will be charged for failing to comply with a 2009 ruling ordering it to offer a choice of web browsers, the European Union’s antitrust chief said on Thursday, which could mean a hefty fine for the company U.S.-based Microsoft’s more than decade-long battle with the European Commission has already landed it with fines totaling more than a billion euros ($1.28 billion). The Commission, which opened an investigation into the issue in July, is now preparing formal charges against the company, EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said.”

An anonymous reader writes “A preliminary ruling from the International Trade Commission found that Apple did not violate four of Samsung’s patents in the design of the iPhone. ‘The patents in the complaint are related to 3G wireless technology, the format of data packets for high-speed transmission, and integrating functions like web surfing with mobile phone functions.’ The complaint was filed by Samsung in 2011, and a final confirmation is due next January. Apple has similar claims against Samsung awaiting ITC judgment; the preliminary ruling is expected in mid-October.”

An anonymous reader writes “Ars reports on a decision from a district judge in Illinois, who ruled that sniffing traffic on an unencrypted Wi-Fi network is not wiretapping. In the ruling, the judge points out an exception in the Wiretap Act which allows people to ‘intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.’ He concludes that ‘the communications sent on an unencrypted Wi-Fi network are readily available to the general public.’ Orin Kerr disagrees with the ruling, saying that the intent of the person setting up the network is important: ‘No one suggests that unsecured wireless networks are set up with the goal that everyone on the network would be free to read the private communications of others.’”

Wired has an article about a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying the government can’t be sued over intercepting phone calls without a warrant. The decision (PDF) vacated an earlier ruling which allowed a case to be brought against the government. The plaintiffs in the case argued that the government had implicitly waived sovereign immunity, but today’s ruling points out that it can only be waived explicitly. Judge McKeown wrote, “This case effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs’ ongoing attempts to hold the Executive Branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization.” The ruling does, however, take time to knock down the government’s claim that the case was brought frivolously: “In light of the complex, ever-evolving nature of this litigation, and considering the significant infringement on individual liberties that would occur if the Executive Branch were to disregard congressionally-mandated procedures for obtaining judicial authorization of international wiretaps, the charge of ‘game-playing’ lobbed by the government is as careless as it is inaccurate. Throughout, the plaintiffs have proposed ways of advancing their lawsuit without jeopardizing national security, ultimately going so far as to disclaim any reliance whatsoever on the Sealed Document. That their suit has ultimately failed does not in any way call into question the integrity with which they pursued it.”